[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

[Scaramanga]

By Frederick II, do you mean the King of Prussia? Old Fritz?
I'm not terribly interested in Austria, their best leaders are from an era in European history I'm not into. Taking AP Euro class bored me.

Most history bores me unless it ties in with Civ. And yes, der alte fritz, who was rival of Maria Theresa, who would tie in with the Age system quite well considering the state Austria was in before her. Austria could also be interesting with the free city mechanic.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If you arrange the world by how was Europe by the time the leader lived - Go ahead.
Montezuma was nit exactly Rennaissancing the Classical Mayan culture, and Jayavarman ruled during the greatest ages of South East Asian Culture.
You'd rather have Monty ancient and Jaya classical or rennaissance.
This way, or simply arrange it by years.

In the instance of this list the eras (Renaissance etc) refer to the years rather than technological development.

 

[evanaurora]

Off the top-- I think Austria is a fascinating country with a rich culture and history. That said... I'd be surprised if Austria was a separate civ in this game. Nor do I think they should be, honestly. I mean, we've got Barbarossa as leader of Germany. Add an Austrian leader as an alternate if getting Austria explicitly represented is important, but making them a whole separate entity seems redundant.

 

[Guandao]

If you arrange the world by how was Europe by the time the leader lived - Go ahead.
Montezuma was nit exactly Rennaissancing the Classical Mayan culture, and Jayavarman ruled during the greatest ages of South East Asian Culture.
You'd rather have Monty ancient and Jaya classical or rennaissance.
This way, or simply arrange it by years.

The Aztecs weren't that technologically backwards compared to the Maya. Just saying.
And why must the Medieval era be considered a less worthy age than the others?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Off the top-- I think Austria is a fascinating country with a rich culture and history. That said... I'd be surprised if Austria was a separate civ in this game. Nor do I think they should be, honestly. I mean, we've got Barbarossa as leader of Germany. Add an Austrian leader as an alternate if getting Austria explicitly represented is important, but making them a whole separate entity seems redundant.

I agree. Austria is probably not going to reappear in Civ VI. Hopefully that increases the chance for Hungary.

 

[Guandao]

I agree. Austria is probably not going to reappear in Civ VI. Hopefully that increases the chance for Hungary.

What makes you think so?
We still haven't got Vienna as a City-State (I know current City States will become Civs, like Seoul), so the possibility of Austria reappearing is still open.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

What makes you think so?
We still haven't got Vienna as a City-State (I know current City States will become Civs, like Seoul), so the possibility of Austria reappearing is still open.

They seem more like a "guest star" than a "series regular" if you get my metaphor.

 

[Guandao]

They seem more like a "guest star" than a "series regular" if you get my metaphor.

I guess so, then Firaxis should make Vienna a City-State then.

 

[God of Kings]

[Originally posted under R&F Screenshot Discussion thread]

Thought this chart might be helpful in regards to the question, "Is this time in history represented?" I placed each civ based on the era of its leader, not necessarily on the eras it existed (ie, Egypt isn't an "ancient" civ since Cleo reigned in Classical). I think I got everybody, but my apologies if I did not.

Ancient:
Gilgamesh

Classical:
Trajan
Cleopatra
Qin
Tomyris
Gorgo/Pericles
Amanitore
Cyrus
Alexander

Medieval:
Hojo
Frederick
Jadwiga
Jayavarman
Gitarja
Harald
Saladin

Renaissance:
Catherine
Peter
Montezuma
Mvembe
Phillip

Industrial:
Victoria
Pedro

Modern:
Teddy
Curtin
Gandhi

Atomic:
-

Info:
-

Mvembe should be Mvemba.

 

[pgm123]

I wouldn't expect Atomic and Information era leaders for the simple reason that the designers probably wouldn't want their animated leaders to be compared to people everyone has actually seen and heard

I'm not sure what they consider the Atomic Era. It doesn't seem like it's strictly post-WWII because it includes techs and civics that are earlier. Fighters were in production before WWII with the P-51 Mustang prototype unveiled in 1940. The Anti-Aircraft gun used as the unit model debuted in 1934. The machine gun is from WWI. The Yorktown-class Carrier is from 1937. Anyway, I'm saying John Curtin is arguably atomic. If you date Gandhi's "reign" to independence, then he's definitely atomic.

 

[Rosty K]

I'm not sure what they consider the Atomic Era. It doesn't seem like it's strictly post-WWII because it includes techs and civics that are earlier. Fighters were in production before WWII with the P-51 Mustang prototype unveiled in 1940. The Anti-Aircraft gun used as the unit model debuted in 1934. The machine gun is from WWI. The Yorktown-class Carrier is from 1937. Anyway, I'm saying John Curtin is arguably atomic. If you date Gandhi's "reign" to independence, then he's definitely atomic.

Well, there are a few exceptions to that theory of mine in Civ6. Gandhi (well, he's a mascot) and Curtin, and probably Teddy I believe should have been shot on moving pictures at some point. Photos of Victoria and Pedro do exist as well, but in the game they are depicted in young age, which sort of agrees with me

Civ5 didn't have too many of such leaders as well, btw. Haile (also sort of young-ish), Gandhi again, and that's it I think... Edit: there are photos of Bismarck too.

 

[God of Kings]

Mao was dead for fifteen years when he appeared in Civ I.

 

[Rosty K]

Mao was dead for fifteen years when he appeared in Civ I.

When they were making Civ I they sort of didn't care about politics I guess. They probably never even expected it to go to international markets even

 

[Scaramanga]

I agree. Austria is probably not going to reappear in Civ VI. Hopefully that increases the chance for Hungary.

Hungary over Austria is a bit of a laugh. Germany over Austria is fair but I would beseech them not to exclude Austria on the basis of regional variety. A cultural victory emanating from Vienna is too good to pass up.

 

[Absolution]

In the instance of this list the eras (Renaissance etc) refer to the years rather than technological development.

This is a problematic way to refer to years.
Taking about representing different eras you could use it well to distinguish different eras of European culture.
But these eras do nearly nothing to distinguish different phases of other cultures.

If you found out you lack some Renaissance era leaders, would you add Naresuan to solve it?
Why is it better in representation than adding a similar leader of 200 years earlier? Because Europeans hadn't discovered America by that time, is that why...?

You should either divide it by regions, and each one by its respective eras; or alternatively list the world according to neutral periods of years (e.g. 1200-1700, 500BC-200BC, ....).

The Aztecs weren't that technologically backwards compared to the Maya. Just saying.
And why must the Medieval era be considered a less worthy age than the others?

Were the Medieval Europeans technologically backwards compared to Ancient Greeks?

Medieval is a period of transition between two other notable eras.
Well, it could be even said that the Aztec hegemony came after a few centuries of insignificance following the Mayan decline, so.... They are a true Renaissance civ!

Spoiler Anyway, I'd put it that way, as a quite arbitrary example :

Last 50 years:
no leaders

Last 100 years:
Teddy
Curtin
Gandhi

Last 250 years:
Victoria
Pedro

Last 750 years
Hojo
Jadwiga
Gitarja
Catherine
Peter
Montezuma
Mvembe
Phillip

Last 1700 years
Frederick
Jayavarman
Harald
Saladin

Last 3500 years
Trajan
Cleopatra
Qin
Tomyris
Gorgo/Pericles
Amanitore
Cyrus
Alexander

Last 6000 years
Gilgamesh

We can clearly see by that list that the periods who need more representation urgently are between 750 and 1700 years ago (300-1250 AD) and 100-250 yeas ago (1750-1900).

That's how we represent different phases of the world as a whole, neutrally.

Alternatively, we could try to deter which civ, technologically (According the game's tech tree ), had been in which Era, at the time of its included leader.

 

[LastSword]

Germany over Austria is repeating joke of a series. Though it tells a lot about how history is perceived.
And I seriously doubt Firaxis will ever again throw Austrian leader to Germany, they care too much now to show such level of ignorance.

 

[Zaarin]

Were the Medieval Europeans technologically backwards compared to Ancient Greeks?

No. Not by a longshot.

Medieval is a period of transition between two other notable eras.

So is every era. The Classical Era was a period of transition between the Ancient Era and the Medieval Era. The Renaissance was a period of transition (an overexaggerated one, at that) between the Late Middle Ages and the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a period of transition between the Renaissance and the Industrial Era.

*sigh* You'd think after a hundred years, the myth of the "Dark Ages" would have been dispelled by now.

Germany over Austria is repeating joke of a series. Though it tells a lot about how history is perceived.
And I seriously doubt Firaxis will ever again throw Austrian leader to Germany, they care too much now to show such level of ignorance.

That Austria isn't Germany is a quirk of history, or more precisely a political ploy of Bismarck's. Given that Civ6's Germany is the Holy Roman Empire, Maria Theresa as an alternate German ruler would make just as much sense as adding an Austrian (or Austrian-Hungarian) civilization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That Austria isn't Germany is a quirk of history, or more precisely a political ploy of Bismarck's. Given that Civ6's Germany is the Holy Roman Empire, Maria Theresa as an alternate German ruler would make just as much sense as adding an Austrian (or Austrian-Hungarian) civilization

They've had Austria in the past. We at least have Alexander leading Macedon now, and not Greece. By the time Maria Theresa came into power I don't believe she really ruled over the lands of modern day Germany and wouldn't necessarily make since as an alternate leader in my opinion, since it's not the Holy Roman Empire Civ. In that case we already have Italy, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the Philippines thanks to both Frederick and Phillip.
Besides I think she has a real advantage, maybe not in this expansion, though because they are looking at female leaders more. I could honestly see them picking Austria over Sweden, if it came down to it.

 

[Absolution]

No. Not by a longshot.


So is every era. The Classical Era was a period of transition between the Ancient Era and the Medieval Era. The Renaissance was a period of transition (an overexaggerated one, at that) between the Late Middle Ages and the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was a period of transition between the Renaissance and the Industrial Era.

*sigh* You'd think after a hundred years, the myth of the "Dark Ages" would have been dispelled by now.

I fear that I have been largely misunderstood.
1. Sure they were far ahead of Ancient Greeks in terms of technology. I was demonstrating a point, that the Aztec being ahead in technology doesn't make them different than Medieval Europeans.
2. I tried to explain the semantic of Medieval as a term. It was coined to describe a period of in between "favoured" eras. Industrial, as a term, was not coined to describe an in between period...

 

[Zaarin]

I fear that I have been largely misunderstood.
1. Sure they were far ahead of Ancient Greeks in terms of technology. I was demonstrating a point, that the Aztec being ahead in technology doesn't make them different than Medieval Europeans.
2. I tried to explain the semantic of Medieval as a term. It was coined to describe a period of in between "favoured" eras. Industrial, as a term, was not coined to describe an in between period...

Ah, I misunderstood you. There are a lot of people who still believe that nothing of consequence happened between the Fall of Rome and the Protestant Reformation.